2013 (3) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... MR MANISH J SHAH for Opponent(s): 1,   ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)   1. Revenue has challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 25.4.2008 proposing following question of law for our consideration:- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... stand, it set aside the order of Assessing Officer. It also held the project to be integrated venture with common administration for generating power. 5. When challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal, it concurred with the findings of CIT(Appeals) and relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Core Health Care Ltd. reported in [2008] 298....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant. In our view, section 36(1)(III)of the 1961 Act has to be read on its own terms. It is a code by itself. Section 36(1)(iii) is attracted when the assessee borrows the capital for the purpose of his business. It does not matter whether the capital is borrowed in order to acquire a revenue asset or a capital asset, because all that the section requires is that the assessee must borrow the capita....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. [1966] 60 ITR 52 have been given with reference to the borrowings made for the purposes of a running business, while the decision of the Supreme Court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. [1975] 98 ITR 167 was given with reference to the borrowings which could not be treated as made for the purposes of business as no business had commenced in that case. Therefore, there is no inconsistency between the ab....